MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413440131 · doi:10.1002/bcp.70261

Effects of pharmacist care on hospitalizations in heart failure across outpatient and inpatient settings: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2025· review· en· W4413440131 on OpenAlexaff
Lorenz Van der Linden, Craig J. Beavers, Paul Forsyth, Christophe Vandenbriele, Ross T. Tsuyuki, Fatma Karapinar‐Çarkit, Lucas Van Aelst

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacistMedicineMeta-analysisHeart failureEmergency medicineMEDLINEIntensive care medicineInpatient careOutpatient visitsMedical emergencyPharmacyFamily medicineHealth careInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims Heart failure (HF) is major cause of unplanned (re)hospitalizations, especially in high‐risk patients such as those recently discharged or those with worsening HF. Hospital‐affiliated or clinic‐based pharmacists, though underutilized, may help reduce this burden. This systematic review and meta‐analysis assessed their impact on all‐cause and HF hospitalizations. Methods A systematic literature search using PUBMED and EMBASE and conducted according to PRISMA guidelines identified randomized controlled trials published up to November 2024. Eligible studies evaluated the effects of pharmacy interventions on hospitalizations and mortality among patients with HF. Studies with community pharmacy‐ or home‐based interventions were excluded. Study quality was appraised using the Cochrane risk‐of‐bias tool. Random‐effects models were applied to derive odds ratios (OR), with heterogeneity assessed using the I 2 statistic and Cochrane's Q test. Results Eleven studies were included, involving 3576 patients and a variety of pharmacist interventions. Pharmacists significantly reduced the odds of all‐cause hospitalizations compared to usual care (3472 patients, 927 events; OR 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49–0.92, P = 0.0119). For HF hospitalizations (3442 patients, 504 events), similar results were retrieved (OR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.48–0.87, P = 0.0038). Heterogeneity was moderate for both analyses. Sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of these two analyses. Subgroup analyses indicated greater effectiveness in outpatient settings and when extended interventions were provided. Conclusions Across inpatient and outpatient settings, pharmacist interventions in HF significantly reduced all‐cause as well as HF hospitalizations. Our findings highlight the importance of integrating pharmacists into multidisciplinary teams to improve HF management for in‐ and outpatients.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.048
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.414 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Clinical PharmacologySame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207